United States v. Tamburello ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •          U NITED S TATES N AVY –M ARINE C ORPS
    C OURT OF C RIMINAL A PPEALS
    _________________________
    No. 201600109
    _________________________
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    Appellee
    v.
    MARK A. TAMBURELLO
    Staff Sergeant (E-6), U.S. Marine Corps
    Appellant
    _________________________
    Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary
    Military Judge: Major Michael D. Zimmerman, USMC.
    For Appellant: Major Benjamin A. Robles, USMC.
    For Appellee: Lieutenant Taurean K. Brown, JAGC, USN; Major
    Cory A. Carver, USMC.
    _________________________
    Decided 17 November 2016
    _________________________
    Before C AMPBELL , R UGH , and HUTCHISON, Appellate Military Judges
    _________________________
    This opinion does not serve as binding precedent, but may be cited
    as persuasive authority under NMCCA Rule of Practice and
    Procedure 18.2.
    _________________________
    PER CURIAM:
    At a contested general court-martial, officer and enlisted members
    convicted the appellant of a sexual assault in violation of Article 120,
    Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 920 (2012). The members
    sentenced the appellant to six months’ confinement, reduction to pay grade
    E-1, and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority approved the
    sentence as adjudged.
    In the sole assignment of error, the appellant avers that the military
    judge erred in the findings instructions. Without objection at trial, the
    military judge instructed the members, in part, “If, based on your
    consideration of the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the accused is
    guilty of the crime charged, you must find him guilty.” Record at 221, 548. We
    found no error in the use of the same challenged reasonable doubt instruction
    in United States v. Rendon, __ M.J. __, No. 201500408, 2016 CCA LEXIS 643,
    at *26 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 1 Nov 2016), and in accordance with that
    holding, we summarily reject the appellant’s assignment of error here. United
    States v. Clifton, 
    35 M.J. 79
    (C.M.A. 1992).
    The findings and sentence are affirmed.
    For the Court
    R.H. TROIDL
    Clerk of Court
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 201600109

Filed Date: 11/17/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/18/2016